Previous month:
September 2007
Next month:
November 2007

October 2007

Is Management Really on Board?

One of the primary workplace demands is for greater responsiveness to change. It is widely accepted that organisational success is increasingly dependent on the ability to adapt rapidly to change. Managers globally are looking for the means to engender greater employee engagement and the ability to respond more quickly to change. But have they recognised that they need to change themselves? Are they guilty of expecting behaviours from their workforce that they are not exhibiting themselves?   

According to an article, “The Time We Waste” by Helen Kirwan-Taylor in the September issue of Management Today, citing studies by AOL, Microsoft and, “The average worker, apparently, now wastes 2.1 hours a day.” Assuming that ‘the average worker’ works a seven-and-a-half hour day, that means they are ‘wasting’ a massive 28% of their time. This may sound steep but doesn’t appear too way off the mark, for in a separate report published in Top Consultant News, Proudfoot Consulting states that, “Companies in the UK waste around 18% of all working time through inefficient use of labour, the equivalent of 40 working days per employee per year. And the financial cost amounts to a whopping £80bn, or around 7% of GDP, based on current average hourly wages in manufacturing.” Whatever the exact percentage, the problem exists and is of a scale that suggests cause to be concerned.

Yet, how appropriate is it to still be measuring productivity in terms of time, in an era in which the focus is on “knowledge work” and “knowledge workers”? Time as a basis for measuring productivity is a vestige of the Agricultural Age; and while it has continued to serve us well throughout the Industrial Age, its continued use is definitely open to challenge. The Best Buys case study referred to in Kirwan-Taylor’s article supports this position, with a Results Only Work Environment (ROWE) project improving productivity by 35% and reducing employee turnover from 36.6% to 6%. It would appear that not only are management wasting their own time by measuring people’s use of time, but in doing so they are compounding the very problems they are trying to solve - increasing stress and undermining employee engagement.

This corroborates Gary Hamel’s statement in the following article in the same magazine that, “What ultimately constrains the performance of your organisation is not its business model, nor its operational model but its management model.” Clearly management is relying on traditional tools and measures in a changed world, demanding change of their people, but seemingly oblivious to their own need to change. It is therefore inevitable that this will cause conflict and stress in the workplace.

Indeed the 2007 Proudfoot Productivity Report referred to earlier shows that more than three-quarters of inefficient working in 2006 was the result of three root causes:
•    Inadequate workforce supervision;
•    Poor management planning and control;
•    Poor communication.
In the light of this it is hardly surprising that employee engagement is one of the most pressing challenges management faces. So, if they want to solve it, management are clearly going to have to look more closely in the mirror, at their own behaviours.

A new study by Watson Wyatt Worldwide, the global consulting firm, and WorldatWork, an international association of human resource professionals, reported in Top-Consultant, shows that a large majority of companies around the world are struggling to attract and retain top-performing and critical-skill workers. The study also found that workers rank stress as a top reason they would leave their company, while it is not even among the top five reasons identified by employers, who instead cite insufficient pay and lack of career development and promotion opportunities. "Worldwide, the frenetic pace of modern business is taking its toll on employees," said Adam Sorensen, global total rewards practice leader at WorldatWork. "There's no question that employees are more likely to leave or speak badly of their workplace if they feel overburdened. Companies that take steps to ensure that stress levels are not onerous will save money in the long run by reducing attrition." 

I hope I am not the only one who finds this incredibly ironic: people wasting as much as 28% of their time at work, hardly correlates to people stressed “due to the frenetic pace of modern business.” One has to have some sympathy with management when they get such apparently conflicting reports.

Yet it may not be quite the paradox it seems. Any psychologist will tell you that approval and praise are the most important tools in the motivational box. Working in an environment where this is not forthcoming will inevitably cause stress, simply because – as a rule – people will always endeavour to do their best. So rather than being contradictory, it might indeed be the case of cause and effect that Watson Wyatt conclude.

If the use of time as a measure of performance is inappropriate, as we saw earlier, it is hardly surprising that workforce supervision is inadequate, for the two are linked. Inevitably, this in turn results in poor management and control and poor communication. It is a vicious circle rooted fairly and squarely in management’s own inability to either recognise the need for change or to identify how to change.

Treating and managing people as assets in exactly the same manner as any other assets provides an ideal solution to this conundrum. It will act as the catalyst needed to move away from time-based performance assessment, reduce the need for supervision, (which is in any case a relic of traditional thinking and wholly inappropriate in a knowledge-work environment) and thus invert the foregoing vicious circle to create a virtuous cycle where people are properly managed and there is effective communication. More than that, though, it will also provide the important first step in creating the new management model that Gary Hamel is calling for. 

Management is ultimately responsible for an organisation’s performance, but managers facing the challenge of poor performance, need to recognise that they are also part of the problem and have to change just as much, if not more, than their employees. And they had better climb aboard now, if they want to ensure the organisation’s future success. 

It’s been a long time coming!

The term “Human Capital” was first used by Adam Smith in his seminal work “The Wealth of Nations” published in 1776, yet it has taken nearly 200 years to move into the lexicon of business management. Now that it has, however, we need to be careful how we go about implementing the concept. 

Smith defined Human Capital as “The acquired and useful abilities of all the inhabitants or members of the society,” adding, “The acquisition of such talents, by the maintenance of the acquirer during his education, study, or apprenticeship, always costs a real expense, which is a capital fixed and realized, as it were, in his person. Those talents, as they make a part of his fortune, so do they likewise that of the society to which he belongs. The improved dexterity of a workman may be considered in the same light as a machine or instrument of trade which facilitates and abridges labour, and which, though it costs a certain expense, repays that expense with a profit.”

This is logical and consistent with the approach taken to other capital, and it is therefore rather puzzling that it didn’t receive the same degree of acceptance. Indeed the term does not appear to have been used again until 1954, and only appears to have become more popular with the publication of the book “Human Capital” by Gary Becker in 1964. Why it has taken so long and not been subject to the same accounting treatment could well be the subject of a thesis all on its own, and is certainly not something I wish to go into great detail about here. It clearly has been a complex subject, with enormous socio-political implications.

This can be deduced from the simple definition of the London School of Economics as, “The stock of expertise accumulated by a worker. It is valued for its income-earning potential in the future.” Also the 1998 OECD definition as, “the knowledge, skills and competences and other attributes, embodied in individuals, that are relevant to economic activity.” Both hint at the complexities of the subject, while the latter is evidence of both its political ramifications and increasing relevance.

Nevertheless, there is a danger of over-complicating things, and I believe that has perhaps been the biggest factor in the 200 year delay. The question of value is always a difficult one because it is always subjective. If you don’t believe me: which is worth more – a glass of water or a 27 carat, flawless diamond? Of course in normal circumstances the diamond is the obvious answer, but to a man stranded in the middle of the desert the glass of water could just save his life while the diamond would be worthless! When dealing with people, the question becomes even more thorny, because every individual is different and each will have their own idea of their value, so it becomes even more subjective. Furthermore, it has the same sensitivity to situation: an unemployed electrician would be worth his weight in gold on a space shuttle stranded in space with an electrical malfunction. 

While it is impossible to anticipate every possible situation, at the end of the day, however, it has to be possible to have a standard that can be used as a starting basis for determining the value of an individual. After all, going back to the diamond, a carat is just a unit of measure for weighing it and comparing it with other diamonds. Its “value” still depends on a number of other factors such as the shape, the flaws and ultimately on the price a prospective buyer is willing to pay. No two diamonds are the same, but that doesn’t preclude us from putting a value on them. Why should people be any different?

The fact is that human capital does have a value: a principle that, as we have seen, has been recognised and accepted for nearly two hundred years. All that has been missing is:
•    The standard of valuation;
•    The sense of urgency to develop one.
The latter situation, evidenced by the growing usage of the term Human Capital, is changing rapidly, enforced by global competition, the pace of change, the ‘war for talent’ and the recognition of the importance of people to an organisation. 

And now Zealise has created the former. It offers a basis for valuing people that can become a standard for the future. It offers all the ingredients essential to any valuation system in that it is:
•    Logical
•    Consistent
•    Easily understandable and taught
•    Measurable.
And, as with any measurement system, it isn’t the measure itself that is important, but the fact that it provides ready and relatively easy comparison. After all, “keeping up with the Jones” has always been relative perception rather than an absolute measure.   

But, perhaps best of all, it doesn’t pose a threat to the people being valued, but, to the contrary, offers a basis for better fulfilling their own individual potential.

Clearly it is an idea whose time has finally come.

Wanton Waste

“The effectiveness of organisations could be at least doubled if managers could discover how to tap into the unrealised potential present in their workforces.”

This powerful statement should make any serious business leader stop and think. After all there is no limiting qualification when it talks about organisations and ‘at least doubled’ implies that business is operating at less than 50% of where it should be. Nor does the fact that it was made by Douglas McGregor in his book “The Human Side of Enterprise”, published nearly half a century ago in 1960, make it any less thought-provoking today? 

In questioning the statement, it seems logical to first consider whether his assessment is valid, before assessing the scale of the problem. Before doing so, however, it is perhaps worthwhile to consider the era in which the statement was made. After all the sixties could well be said to be one of the most pivotal periods of progress in human history – the time when individual freedom truly came to the fore; industrial development brought new-found prosperity; man landed on the moon and the Information Revolution was launched. In the light of such progress it seems contrary to talk about ‘unrealised potential,’ particularly as, commercially at least, the corollary is under-productivity – as McGregor himself implied by linking potential and effectiveness. 

At this stage computers were still in their embryonic phase and manual effort was still paramount in all commercial endeavour. Consequently progress was almost entirely on the back of human effort and so, at first glance, it seems extremely harsh to judge people as being unproductive, for that prosperity was undoubtedly hard-earned. 

Yet this was the era of mass-production, when both blue collar and white collar work was prescribed and so largely regimented and routine. It therefore seems highly likely that workers did only use a fraction of their true potential, which certainly justifies the assessment, but it is hardly prima facie evidence. 

This is where the correlation between unrealised potential and poor productivity becomes significant, for it provides more substantial corroboration, as poor productivity was one of the major management issues of the day. In this case, however, it is also possible to use the benefit of hindsight, for the extent to which technology has replaced people and changed the nature of work confirms the lack of productivity of the era. Indeed, the replacement of people has always been one of the major factors used to justify investment in technology. 

In fact, if you accept the logic of the relationship, the scale of technological development, with its effect on productivity and the workplace, not only validates McGregor’s statement, but simultaneously proves the secondary point about the scale, even without the ability to actually measure potential.  So, having established its validity, we now need to look at it more closely and see whether lessons have been learned and the problem has been resolved.

The biggest challenge here is, of course, that there is still no way to measure potential. Consequently, while managers continue to do what they can to bolster productivity in order to boost performance, perhaps the best indicator of their success is ‘employee engagement.’ This is itself an indicator of the extent to which people management issues have evolved over the subsequent decades and the greater emphasis placed on people within the workplace. It is therefore truly ironic that such measures are uniformly bad. The most recent Gallup Employee Engagement Index indicates that only 29% of US employees are engaged and, shocking though this is, it is still the best in the developed world and around 10% better than the UK. 

The irony lies in the fact that, in all probability, had such measures existed in the sixties, the results could have been a lot worse, for the fact is that, “in real terms,” work conditions have improved manifestly since the sixties. Unfortunately expectations have increased at the same time, which makes employee engagement an unfortunate measure because it is largely subjective, measuring perceptions rather than reality. And, as anyone who has watched “X Factor” can tell you, this can be dangerous for perception can lead to expectations that are widely divorced from reality!

Nevertheless, while it may seem grossly unfair to penalise managers for such poor measures, the fact is that running any business operating with such low levels of employee engagement is like trying to run a four cylinder car on only one cylinder. It hardly matters what the potential is, for even in the unlikely event that everything else is operating at 100%, the business itself is operating at only 20-30% of its capability.

Continuing the motoring analogy, you could argue that it is no more possible to realise a person’s full potential than it is to drive a car at anything close to its top speed, but even a car needs a good long journey and the opportunity to “stretch its legs” once in a while, if it is to operate at anything like its most efficient even on the school run. The difference is that a car doesn’t have feelings and the more people’s feelings are disregarded or discounted the more damage that they can do. That is why the employee engagement surveys cited earlier indicate that there are active disengagement levels of close to 20%.

Regardless of the validity or otherwise of the measure, the fact is that if people are not applying their full effort to their work, the organisation is operating at a sub-optimum level and its results will be worse than they should be. Consequently, one has to conclude that McGregor was correct, and that even today business effectiveness could be more than doubled if a way could be found to address this lost human potential. It therefore appears that his warnings fell on deaf ears and that business has learned nothing over the past 50 years about how to use its human assets more effectively. This is wanton waste.

While the past is past and cannot be retrieved, it is therefore important that we do something now to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. This lost human potential that McGregor refers to, is what I call ‘human economic waste.’  It is what led me to develop my methods for treating people as the assets and why I am so excited about the potential this brings. There are currently many initiatives to address some of the symptoms of employee disengagement but the vast majority are all aimed at improving motivation and so depend on external factors to try to shape behaviour. The Zealise approach is different, because it starts with the individual – the person who is best placed to shape and develop their own potential. It thus creates a formal mechanism that:
•    aligns individual and organisation;
•    builds an effective partnership to optimise the individual contribution;
•    properly recognises and rewards effort;
•    allows consistent measurement and equitable comparisons.

It therefore not only provides a realistic solution to the problem of employee disengagement, but creates an ideal response to McGregor’s issues by providing the mechanism to tap into the unrealised potential of people and thus to at least double the effectiveness of the organisation.

Human “Beings” – not Human “Doings”!

Wow! This phrase really resonated with me when I came across it in one of the newsletters I receive regularly.   

I don’t know about you, but all too often life seems to revolve around what you do, rather than what you are. Whenever we meet someone new, one of the first questions we ask is invariably, “What do you do, Joe?” (It is even embedded in the way I was brought up to say, “How do you do” when first introduced to someone. For me it was just a polite expression; something one always said when meeting someone for the very first time. Thus I never saw it as a question and so, even now, I am always somewhat taken aback when someone – usually a North American – replies, “I am doing just fine thank you!”) 

With the emphasis on networking in today’s business environment, the question “What do you do?” has become almost as commonplace as “How are you today?” Only now, especially for consultants, it has a whole new importance, and we have to be trained how to answer – how to give an “elevator pitch” (a rehearsed spiel built on the premise that you are a salesperson with only the time between the elevator doors closing and reaching the executive suite in which to engage the CEO’s interest in your product or service.) Get it right and you are well on your way to making your first million: get it wrong and you are doomed to walk the streets forever! At least that is what the underlying message seems to be.   

However, while networking may have given the question a new significance, the tendency is hardly new. In fact, not only is our social status determined by what we do, but also our entire working lives. The whole recruitment process is primarily shaped by
a)    The work we are required to do; and
b)    Our previous experience and the manner in which it has prepared us to do this work.
Then, once we have the job, our future prospects and our chances of promotion are also determined by what we do. So it does seem that it might be more appropriate to refer to the human race as “human doings” rather than “human beings.” 

As with most humour, it is the element of truth that makes the idea amusing, but it also gives us cause to stop and think about the serious aspect, for such thought processes do rather belittle us. We are all much more than the role we have at work, and we all have more potential than we are expected, or even allowed, to use at work. Consequently it is hardly surprising that there are tensions in the workplace.

On the one hand such constraints have helped contribute to record levels of employee estrangement, while on the other, changing workforce demographics and increased global competition, with the resultant pressure on innovation, productivity, growth and customer service, have caused executives to recognise that an organisation’s people are vital to its continued success and even its survival. 

A paradox when the major justification for technology has invariably been its power to reduce dependence on people, but the fact is that technology costs have reduced to such an extent, and its use is so widespread, that technology itself is no longer a major business differentiator and provides little competitive advantage. This may not come as a surprise to those for whom the old sales adage, “People buy from people” is a fundamental tenet, but the fact is this is no longer strictly true. Just think Amazon or eBay. Nevertheless, it is still people who determine the quality of service, and both systems design and ultimate delivery depends on the human factor, and, in the face of the pressures already outlined, business leaders are waking to this. Thus the pressure is on to find new methods to change attitudes and behaviours.

However, the pressures driving such change are not just commercial. Employment practices have evolved from slavery and serfdom, through the piece-work of the late agricultural age and early industrial era, on to ever more humane practices through the course of the industrial age and into the information age, spurred by the growth in democracy. One might argue as to which is the chicken and which the egg, but it is inevitable that the spread of democracy should affect attitudes in the workplace. It should be no surprise that employees who have democratic rights, and take them as given, find it difficult to accept the “command and control” attitudes that, until recently, have been so prevalent in business.

Unfortunately, even though these “command and control” attitudes are changing, the systems used to reinforce it have not changed, creating an inherent, unrecognised conflict in the workplace, where people are referred to as assets but not treated as such. It is thus hardly surprising that lack of employee engagement is a major, growing issue. 

This is where the headline comes in, because seeing people as human beings is an essential element of this process. This requires looking at people in their totality and hiring people for who they are rather than as “job-fillers.”

In order to introduce and embed such thinking, however, it is vital to find new approaches. This is why the concept of treating people as assets offers an ideal solution, for it starts at the very root of the problem. While the prospect of creating a whole new field of accounting may seem pretty daunting, it need not be quite so sophisticated but could rather facilitate a whole category of new KPI measures and so begin the process of moving people management from a “soft” skill to something more tangible and systemic. It provides a framework to:
a)    Look at the total person and thus compel change from the traditional approaches;
b)    Ensure a consistent approach to valuing people;
c)    Encourage and reinforce value-enhancement;
d)    Create the alignment necessary to implement strategy effectively;
e)    Measure and drive continuous improvement, both individually and organisationally.
f)    Measure (and compare) management effectiveness.

This is essential in an economic environment where, executives agree, people issues are at the top of the strategic agenda. How else can executives expect to develop an organisation in which people act like owners in their own business; are responsive to change – initiating it rather than fighting shy of it - and are committed to offering a level of service that keeps customers coming back? How else can management gauge how effective their people-spend is, or how well new strategies and initiatives are really working? It is one area where we need to be doing!

(Note: This blog also appears as a Thought Leadership article in Top-Consultant ) 

People ≠ HR

This headline is taken from the 2007 report on the results of a global survey by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and the Economist Intelligence Unit on people and business, which found that, “Although senior business executives viewed people issues as strategically important, they are not confident that HR is ready for the challenge. In fact, only 23% felt that HR ‘plays a crucial role in strategy formation and operational success.’ ”   

As the same survey indicates that 60% of senior business executives already consider people issues ‘very significant’ or ‘highly significant’ to strategic decision making, a number that increases to 90% when looking three-five years ahead, this is clearly cause for concern. For how can any organisation expect to successfully execute its strategy if those responsible for the resources critical to its execution are uninvolved in either its formulation or delivery? 

This appears to be something that the respondents themselves have identified, for while less than 50% have a Chief HR Officer (CHRO) or other C-level executive dedicated to people issues, 66% expect to have one within the next 3-5 years, while 82% expect HR to be perceived as a strategic, value-adding function. That’s the good news! The bad news, with 90% acknowledging the strategic importance of people but only 23% having an HR function playing a role there, is that there would seem to be a major disconnect.

Hence the headline, for the report identifies this, stating "the results suggest that ‘HR’ and ‘people issues’ are often two entirely different conversations." The core of the problem is the low esteem in which HR is held, for fewer than 16% of those surveyed believe that HR is highly valued by senior executives and in large companies that percentage drops to 10%. This is because, “when business executives talk about HR they focus on things like rewards and benefits, performance evaluations and HR operating efficiency. But when those same executives talk about people issues, they focus on talent management, workforce productivity and leadership development.”

This executive shift is driven by need.  Changing workforce demographics and increased global competition, with its resultant pressure on innovation, productivity, growth and customer service, have combined to bring people issues to the top of the strategic agenda, because executives recognise that an organisation’s people are critical to the introduction of the changes required to deliver on new strategic initiatives. However, while necessity is the mother of invention, understanding needs does not automatically or immediately generate answers. Thus at this stage, although executives recognise that organisational alignment – or what I call organisational teamwork – where everyone is conscientiously striving to the same ends, is essential for success, they have no better idea of the solution than anyone else, and are looking for new ideas that will deliver. 

Unfortunately, HR in its traditional guise has been, and is seen as, a bureaucratic, operational function. Consequently, it has to completely reinvent itself, if it is to instil the necessary confidence and step up to the plate, provide the answers and play the role that executives need it to. Of course this is something that all progressive, forward-thinking executives and HR managers are well aware of. The real challenge is not so much what is needed, but how to move forward.

The answer is implicit in the distinction made between people and HR, with the key being the word people. Traditionally, HR has dealt with roles, job descriptions, competencies, and the like, all things that have been centred around the position. Dealing with people requires a completely different mindset, where the person comes before the job. This requires not only a 180 degree shift in thinking, but also new attitudes to both the way people are treated and the way that managing them is measured.

The concept of treating people as assets makes an ideal springboard for this. Apart from cutting through the historical mindset of people as simply an expense, with the behaviours that induces, it also forms a framework for creating a sense of belonging that is essential for developing that organisational teamwork I spoke of earlier. It will alter the attitude towards recruitment because, just as with any other asset being acquired, the ‘purchase’ will be analysed more thoroughly, with more attention focused on the long-term “fit” and thus entail a more in-depth look at the person and their potential, rather than their immediate competencies to fill a specific position.

Treating people as assets also provides the platform for new Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for Balanced Scorecards. For starters it enables consistent measurement of:
•    The return on investment (ROI).  (Profit/Asset Value)
•    The return on training. (Training Costs/Change in Profit and/or Change in ROI)
•    Average Assets (Total Asset Value/Number of People)
•    Asset Growth ((Value Year 2 – Value Year 1)/Value Year 1)

These are basic measures that should be monitored by all business, but other additional measures could also be introduced, such as:
•    Effectiveness of incentive remuneration (Incentive Remuneration/Asset Value)
•    Human Asset Ratio (Asset Value/Total Base Remuneration)
•    Etc.

Of course measures like these could and should already be widely used, but the fact is few are. This is an indictment of both HR’s lack of strategic thinking and the traditional view of people as an expense rather than an asset. This new approach will encourage more strategic thinking whilst creating a greater partnership between the individual and the organisation to the benefit of both. It will provide a catalyst for cultural change that – as long as the measures don’t themselves become the primary focus – will better equip organisations to address the people issues and pursue strategies that will ensure success. But most importantly of all, it will provide the basis for HR and Executive Management to evolve a worthwhile relationship for working together on matters of strategic importance.

Emotion, Motivation and Manpower

A recent “USA Today” survey found that 53% of Americans are unhappy in their jobs. Given other reports and statistics about the lack of employee engagement in the workplace this should not come as a surprise. Nor is it just an American phenomenon.

Yet it remains a disturbing, even rather frightening, statistic. For how can any organisation expect to operate effectively if more than half the people are not happy?

It would be interesting to know what proportion of that number was executives, but it seems likely that a fair number would have to be. Either way it is cause for concern, because, if there are executives in that number, one has to question what sort of leadership they are providing, and if there are not, it seems pretty likely that there soon will be, simply due to the strain of trying to run a company where the majority are unhappy. After all loving, or at least enjoying, what you do is a prime requirement for a positive attitude – an essential ingredient for a successful operation.

Enjoyment engenders enthusiasm which generates the energy that powers emotion. Take the “E” or energy away from emotion and you are left with motion, and, as any physicist will tell you, motion is not possible without energy. Contrived though my etymology may be, the fact is that unhappiness drains energy, and any organisation of unhappy people is clearly going to lack energy and so function at sub-optimal levels, which has to be to the ultimate detriment of the collective.    

Keeping with the etymological vein, it is worth pointing out that motion and motivation are derived from the same Latin root, and thus unhappiness not only breeds lethargy, but it also puts the brakes on motivation, thus compounding the drain on performance and the challenge for any business leader.

It has become rather unfashionable to talk about “manpower”, yet the essence of the problem here is the loss of people power. The loss of human endeavour associated with this unhappy situation inevitably results in a loss of human potential and ultimately unfulfilled lives. Consequently, in the same way that we still measure mechanical performance in “horsepower”, we need to take a fresh look at this whole “manpower” issue, whatever you want to call it, and find news ways to ensure that we change the work environment, not only to eliminate all the unhappiness in the workplace, but to help people lead more fulfilled lives, and come closer to fulfilling their full potential.

The beauty of trying to do so, is that it will be a win-win for everyone. After all:

“People are like sticks of dynamite… the power’s on the inside. But nothing happens until the fuse gets lit.” (Mac Anderson)

Managers and executives owe it to themselves and their organisations to find a way to light the fuse, and, given the percentages, as a matter of some urgency. Valuing people as assets and treating them as such will certainly act as a catalyst in creating a culture where this is possible, and engender the associated behaviour change that is demanded.